Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't wait to hear the liberal explanations for this one. I thought this was a health care for all bill? Apparently not..
The article is very poorly written, and I can certainly understand why someone reading it may come away with the wrong impression.
For example, the last sentence in the article:
Quote:
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.
This is totally incorrect. Those workers are NOT exempt (any more than Members of Congress are exempt). The waivers address one aspect of the law, and the waivers are temporary.
The second-to-last sentence in the article:
Quote:
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years.
Yes - not as clear as it could be, but it does get across the point that the waivers are temporary - they expire.
So, what ARE these waivers? Well, a lot of people already have health insurance. Many of those people are covered by policies that have annual limits on how much the insurance company will pay out. The Affordable Care Act prohibits lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits.
Many of the employers and insurers who offer such policies would face a significant financial burden if they had to eliminate such dollar limits prior to other options being available to them. And such options will become available when the state health insurance exchanges are up and running in 2014.
So, such organizations - individual companies, insurers, and unions (a lot of people have their health insurance through their union) - can apply for and obtain temporary waivers for this part of the Affordable Care Act only.
The article is very poorly written, and I can certainly understand why someone reading it may come away with the wrong impression.
For example, the last sentence in the article:
This is totally incorrect. Those workers are NOT exempt (any more than Members of Congress are exempt). The waivers address one aspect of the law, and the waivers are temporary.
The second-to-last sentence in the article:
Yes - not as clear as it could be, but it does get across the point that the waivers are temporary - they expire.
So, what ARE these waivers? Well, a lot of people already have health insurance. Many of those people are covered by policies that have annual limits on how much the insurance company will pay out. The Affordable Care Act prohibits lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits.
Many of the employers and insurers who offer such policies would face a significant financial burden if they had to eliminate such dollar limits prior to other options being available to them. And such options will become available when the state health insurance exchanges are up and running in 2014.
So, such organizations - individual companies, insurers, and unions (a lot of people have their health insurance through their union) - can apply for and obtain temporary waivers for this part of the Affordable Care Act only.
And those of us that have similar insurance outside of unions will get hit with that "significant financial burden" in the form of much higher premiums which we are already seeing.
Yeah..ONLY the unions will have financial problems. Nice way to throw anyone who has insurance under the bus.
And those of us that have similar insurance outside of unions will get hit with that "significant financial burden" in the form of much higher premiums which we are already seeing.
Yeah..ONLY the unions will have financial problems. Nice way to throw anyone who has insurance under the bus.
Err... you have been hit with much higher premiums for the last few decades, and yes, you still are. In 2014, that will slow down.
Err... you have been hit with much higher premiums for the last few decades, and yes, you still are. In 2014, that will slow down.
Our candidate in chief promised a $2500 reduction in premiums during the 2008 campaign, not a slowing down.
Lets see if its more BS from the great orator.
Err... you have been hit with much higher premiums for the last few decades, and yes, you still are. In 2014, that will slow down.
No. Up until last year it was between 8-10%.
Last year and this year is 20%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
